Mk3 Expansion - [KSP 1.12x] Version 1.6 [10/5/21]

[SuicidalInsanity]

@nalfz; A MK3-1.25m tricoupler with rotated engine mounts is planned, although I do have a question - Since Shuttle style craft need either good gimbal range on their engines or precision engineering to ensure COM stays put as fuel is burned, would it make more sense to make a tricouler with angled engine mounts and players can use whatever engines they can find that will do the job, or simply make a mk3 SSME style engine cluster with gimbal?

@Wolf Baginski; An interesting idea. Does it have to be bulged? I've thought a few times about making an adapter or two for scaled up cargobays, either via cfg or Tweakscale scaling - it would result in mk2 shaped cargobays 5m across and 3m tall if 2x scale, or 3.75m by 2.25m if 1.5x scale.

Also, for those who want it, the TIE cockpit is now up on kerbalstuff

[Svm420]

With the new engines coming in 1.1 I don't think we need you to make the engines IMO. Though if you have the desire to I don't think anyone would really be opposed

[SuicidalInsanity]

New 1.1 engines? When was this announced? Guess I'd better start reading the devnote Tuesdays again.

Edt: Found them - if that SSME can gimbal as its image implies it can, it looks like I'll just go with the tricoupler over an engine cluster

Edited August 27, 2015 by SuicidalInsanity

[ABZB]

yeah, I only thought to check because manley mentioned it.

[nalfz]

Yeah I was thinking a tricoupler because of the new SSMEs

although since they can be rotated cleanly, maybe it would be better not to angle the mounts? It would still be useful because with stock parts you have to put on a mk3-2.5m adapter and try and offset a tricoupler inside it and it looks quite strange

Actually come to think of it, maybe the devs will be nice and include a mk3 tricoupler in 1.1

Maybe a flat mk2 bicoupler that doesn't hold fuel would be nice, so we could stick two engines onto a mk2 plane and make a mini shuttle, without having to reserve like 2m of valuable length just for the bicoupler

[SuicidalInsanity]

I had a productive day today and got a bunch of stuff modeled:

N-couplers:

in light of the upcoming KSP 1.1 SSMEs, I kept them flat, so engines will need to be gimballed/rotated manually

Engines:

Concentric Toroidal Aerospike, C.L.E.A.V.E.R. dual-cycle engine, and a gimballed Linear Aerospike

And some fuselage extension/saddletanks, because why not:

Five different fuselage extension parts to choose from - Air intake, size1 part mount, end cap, a 2 meter segment, and a 4 meter segment with LF/O tankage. By happy accident, they also serve quite handily as wing roots for the mk3 wing segments

Raw models at the moment, I'll get them textured and do some fine-tuning over the next few days. Assuming the muse stays with me, I should have a version 1.0 official release of the mk3 stuff up in a fortnight or so

[Svm420]

Very nice can't wait to see the textures.

[CptRichardson]

Well, at least we figured out what else to go with your TIE cockpit now, namely a 2.5 meter YT-1300 (also known as the Millenium Freaking Falcon), and the Imperial Shuttle cockpit designed to mate with the Mk 2 formfactor. But they can wait. The movie isn't out until December, no need to get them out before November.

Also, nice Mk 3 parts.

[DavidBowman]

These look awesome!!

[CptRichardson]

You know, instead of making side-blisters, why not make a Mk3 piece that has Mk2 adaptor set on the sides, allowing you to reuse your mk2 pieces? Like the way Y. Keon adds in Mk2 'shoulders' to some of his pieces?

[MaverickSawyer]

You know, instead of making side-blisters, why not make a Mk3 piece that has Mk2 adaptor set on the sides, allowing you to reuse your mk2 pieces? Like the way Y. Keon adds in Mk2 'shoulders' to some of his pieces?

o.O

I like the way you think!

[CptRichardson]

o.O

I like the way you think!

He only has to make one (maybe two) parts. Maybe a version aligned so that the top or bottom is aligned flat against the Mk3 hull flat, and one where the edge is aligned, depending on what the player wants, and it leaves things open for... other possibilities--Like say, daisy-chaining Mk3 hulls together side to side--while still committing to the chine feel while saving him effort and time. (Well, a little effort and time since he's already modeled them). Makes the upcoming tail ramp worthwhile, as we could strap two MATTOCKs to the sides to get around the 'ramp where the THRUST is supposed to be' issue, and lets him reuse his existing Mk2 stable of parts for the sides (like RCS 'chine' blisters, etc), or sets it up so that you can use a full Mk3 hull of fuel and stick a Mk2 science lab on one side and a full experiment-filled cargo bay on the other with linear aerospikes on both ends for thrust and retrothrust.

[Cuky]

Is it possible to add some side blisters that would flatten the bottom of Mk3 shape, so that we can create proper space shuttle replica where wings are flush with belly?

[SuicidalInsanity]

@ CptRichardson;I'll take a look at how viable that would be. I think a horizontal mk2 adapter bracket thing would probably work, but I'm not sure is a vertical mount would work -wouldn't that require clipping a good deal of the mk2 fuselage into the mk3 one?

@Cuky; Funny you should mention that:

An ancient screenshot from 0.25, back when I made an abortive attempt to do something similar, except with a custom shuttle parts pack rather than an addon. It didn't work very well - trying to radial attach something to a part with an omega shaped cross-section was...interesting.

As fuselage extensions, though, something like the above might work...

[CptRichardson]

Is that cockpit there yours?

Addendum: For stacking them vertically against the sides, not really. Extend the mounting bracket out just enough so that the top or bottom of the Mk2 hull just touches the side of the Mk3 hull. For the horizontal orientation, have it so the edge just barely touches.

Edited August 30, 2015 by CptRichardson

[SuicidalInsanity]

No, its one of the ones from the OPT pack

Re: mk2 mounts - ok, that makes more sense.

[CptRichardson]

Been doing some experimentation, found a few issues:

One, the four-way hub only allows one attach at a time to the nodes, breaking symmetry (you can't put a T-node on in plane symmetry mode, it defaults down to the one per placement, and forces you to painstakingly line things up again.)

Two: After trying to install SRB's for liftoff of Jebediah's Thrillmaster, I find myself in burning need of a proper Mk2 air-augmented SRB segment for ground launch assist.

Three: A proper scramjet, like the OPT pack.

[ABZB]

Been doing some experimentation, found a few issues:

One, the four-way hub only allows one attach at a time to the nodes, breaking symmetry (you can't put a T-node on in plane symmetry mode, it defaults down to the one per placement, and forces you to painstakingly line things up again.)

Two: After trying to install SRB's for liftoff of Jebediah's Thrillmaster, I find myself in burning need of a proper Mk2 air-augmented SRB segment for ground launch assist.

Three: A proper scramjet, like the OPT pack.

hmm for number two, are you thinking a mk2- form one, or just a regular cylinder? either way, those *would* be nice for not-planes too- generally SRB's are being used in-atmosphere.

found science:

https://books.google.com/books?id=KEPgEgX2BEEC&pg=PA402&lpg=PA402&dq=solid+rocket+booster+air+augmented&source=bl&ots=isEZ41zcoJ&sig=ANRYOZamk7zRY6VyJirRNN9oFc4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBWoVChMI_p_y-YnSxwIVwzo-Ch1Pjwl4#v=onepage&q=solid%20rocket%20booster%20air%20augmented&f=falsetr

summary: 5-10 times increase in engine mass, around mach 3, 80% of thrust is from intake air, (so has isp be higher at high mach, also higher thrust). sounds useful for SSTO's that might need a boost for LKO

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28825.0

Soviets did the above for their ICBMs.

wiki quote:

Advantages[edit]

The effectiveness of this simple method can be dramatic. Typical solid rockets have a specific impulse of about 260 seconds (2.5 kN·s/kg), but using the same fuel in an air-augmented design can improve this to over 500 seconds (4.9 kN·s/kg), a figure even the best hydrogen/oxygen engines can't match. This design can even be slightly more efficient than a ramjet as the exhaust from the rocket engine compresses the air more than a ramjet normally would; this raises the combustion efficiency as a longer, more efficient nozzle can be employed. Another advantage is that the rocket works even at zero forward speed, whereas a ramjet requires forward motion to feed air into the engine.

wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-augmented_rocket

summary: sounds useful for everything, really. completely plausible, soviet russia already did it.

Edited August 31, 2015 by ABZB

[CptRichardson]

hmm for number two, are you thinking a mk2- form one, or just a regular cylinder? either way, those *would* be nice for not-planes too- generally SRB's are being used in-atmosphere.

found science:

https://books.google.com/books?id=KEPgEgX2BEEC&pg=PA402&lpg=PA402&dq=solid+rocket+booster+air+augmented&source=bl&ots=isEZ41zcoJ&sig=ANRYOZamk7zRY6VyJirRNN9oFc4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBWoVChMI_p_y-YnSxwIVwzo-Ch1Pjwl4#v=onepage&q=solid%20rocket%20booster%20air%20augmented&f=falsetr

summary: 5-10 times increase in engine mass, around mach 3, 80% of thrust is from intake air, (so has isp be higher at high mach, also higher thrust). sounds useful for SSTO's that might need a boost for LKO

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28825.0

Soviets did the above for their ICBMs.

wiki quote:

Advantages[edit]

The effectiveness of this simple method can be dramatic. Typical solid rockets have a specific impulse of about 260 seconds (2.5 kN·s/kg), but using the same fuel in an air-augmented design can improve this to over 500 seconds (4.9 kN·s/kg), a figure even the best hydrogen/oxygen engines can't match. This design can even be slightly more efficient than a ramjet as the exhaust from the rocket engine compresses the air more than a ramjet normally would; this raises the combustion efficiency as a longer, more efficient nozzle can be employed. Another advantage is that the rocket works even at zero forward speed, whereas a ramjet requires forward motion to feed air into the engine.

wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-augmented_rocket

summary: sounds useful for everything, really. completely plausible, soviet russia already did it.

Huh. So they did. But yeah, a Mk-2 hull SRB designed to punch a spaceplane up to Mach One before takeoff in order to save deltaV on the way up, and for kickstarting the main engines with intake air. Starts off 'eh', but towards the end kicks up to pretty respectable thrust (governed by speed?) and detaches a few seconds after takeoff. Maybe vectored bell for giving the slam of upwards thrust for ramping up and away?

Addendum: Give me a few days, and I can theoretically use the existing flat-ended dual-mode engine to make into a preliminary version to save Suicidal Insanity some headaches. See if I can get it working. No promises, but I think I can get it done. Gonna be weird as hell, though.

Addendum-Addendum: Got a preliminary verion of the part file done. Weird as hell since I'm cannibalizing modules from OPT and other places since that's the only place that has the atmosphere curve I'm looking for. Trying to get the right emissive and thrust curve as well. I'll try and get something out tomorrow or tuesday for the M.A.A.C.E. concept engine. (Massive Air-Augmented Controlled Explosion)

Edited August 31, 2015 by CptRichardson

[SuicidalInsanity]

@ CptRichardson;1)The hub suffers from the same denial-of-symmetry that the stock hub suffers from (unless they fixed that at some point when I wasn't looking?)

2) Air-Augmented SRB - From the tech specs ABZB posted, wouldn't it be more effective to fire off the SRB at post-mach speeds, rather than use it as an over-large RATO booster? I could see this being used in tandem with a Scramjet to get to Scramjet speeds...

Three: 3) Scramjets have always been stange beasts in KSP, mainly because they dont really start producing thrust until ~1800m/s, and Kerbin's escape velocity of ~2300 m/s gave them a very short window of operation. Would be great in RSS, though.

@ABZB; There are pros and cons to fuselage or radial Spaceplane SRBs - Radials are easy to detach, but be careful about that, lest they take out a stabilizer when they go, and can be used in the same way as standard SRbs to provide a little extra needed oomph to a craft. They would also be a source of extra drag.

Fuselage SRBs would be much more streamlined and would yield more thrust but require more planning when building a plane around them, especially if they are being jettisoned. Also, one thought - if building a plane around AASRB's, there would almost need to be two parts, not one - a motor, and SolidFuel fuselage segments, allowing a player to choose how much SRB they need to get where they want to go

Re: MAACE) Heh. I enjoy modeling engines, perhaps more than any other part types, so no worries about giving me headaches about new parts.

I also have some experience with custom velcurves, if you want some help with the MAACE prototype.

And on an 'I enjoy engines' segue:

Have a redone Turbojet and Ramjet:

[ABZB]

That sounds like it might be best to try to figure out a mk2-shaped procedural-parts SRB...

[SuicidalInsanity]

Maybe, maybe not. A simple IFS MM patch to add a custom solidfuel resource to existing tanks would solve the fuel problem, and then its just a matter of sticking an engine on the end. Only difference would the engine's lack of an 'off' switch.

Edit: What are people's experiences with scramjets from other mods? I ask since the prototype scramjet I threw together based off of what stats I could find for such engines is proving to be rather difficult to use and test.

Edited September 1, 2015 by SuicidalInsanity

[CptRichardson]

Maybe, maybe not. A simple IFS MM patch to add a custom solidfuel resource to existing tanks would solve the fuel problem, and then its just a matter of sticking an engine on the end. Only difference would the engine's lack of an 'off' switch.

Edit: What are people's experiences with scramjets from other mods? I ask since the prototype scramjet I threw together based off of what stats I could find for such engines is proving to be rather difficult to use and test.

Do what OPT does and have it start to kick in at 900 m/s instead of 1800 m/s. OP as ****, but the sensation of 'what's that funny vacuum n-AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUAAAAAAAGH!' as thrust ramps from 600 to 1400 in six seconds and bodily Jebs you into a high suborbital trajectory makes for a most enjoyable launch.

My main issues with the M.A.A.C.E. right now is fixing the emissives, as the stupid thing is constantly emitting. For balancing it, I'm planning on either giving one the power of two of the 2nd largest SRB's, or two of the largest kind, with the known soviet ISP figures and about 800 units of solid fuel.

Addendum: It might be an interesting twist to make a dual-mode scramjet/rocket, where it doesn't kick in air-breathing power until 800-900 m/s, but closes the combustion chamber and turns into a conventional thruster when the air runs out.

Edited September 1, 2015 by CptRichardson

[Cuky]

@Cuky; Funny you should mention that:

http://i.imgur.com/AR1d1NA.png

An ancient screenshot from 0.25, back when I made an abortive attempt to do something similar, except with a custom shuttle parts pack rather than an addon. It didn't work very well - trying to radial attach something to a part with an omega shaped cross-section was...interesting.

As fuselage extensions, though, something like the above might work...

Woah, thanks. I just had a bit different looking part on my mind. Maybe this illustration helps to clarify what I meant:

Black is standard Mk3 shape, Red is that extention to flatten the bottom and to add flat surface lower on the side to attach wings. I know drawing is not really good, I used MS Paint because I still haven't reinstalled my PS after I reinstalled Windows on my PC

[SuicidalInsanity]

@ CptRichardson;Ah, so more turbobooster Ramjet then. That would be much more usable than what i tried; I was going off of theorized real world stats, so activation at ~1750m/s, TWR ~2, ISP of ~1000, which meant I found myself needing to use ESTOCs on rocket mode to get up to speed, and at that point, why not just continue to use the ESTOCs?

With the emissives constantly emitting, are you trying to stick more than one particle emitter in your FX? I discovered that things like shock diamonds have to be their own FX, and then you use a FXMultiparticle module to combine them when the engine is running.

@Cuky; Yeah, I figured it would be something like that, considering the size of mk3 wings. Heh, now I'm going to have to throw in some mk3 wing segments as well...

Edited September 2, 2015 by SuicidalInsanity